About your Search

20121027
20121104
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
for iraq from george w. bush to barack obama." welcome to both of you. great to be able to talk to both of you here. the close of this campaign. it is very interesting to hear both president obama and mitt romney look in their rearview mirror about the last decade in foreign policy and national security policy and the president saying, look, i ended the war in iraq, we are on a glide path out of afghanistan. and yet we know the threat from both of these countries still remains and there's a lot of unfinished business. michael, you get to a lot of that of course in your book, in iraq. the idea that we're done. put it in the rear view mir but there's a lot of unfinished business. >> yeah. one thing that's striking to me is just really the gap between the campaign rhetoric and what the obama administration's actual policy was in iraq because you have to ask yourself the question, what does it mean to end a war? and it's lot more than simply removing troops and actually, when president obama approached iraq, he, himself, and his team, thought it entailed a lot more than removing troops them
, for example, george w. bush elected over an al gore it makes tremendous impact. you go to war perhaps. >> and katty's point, does that get the people skiletted in 2008 by this hope, change message and by obama as the candidate as excited as playing to the fear that -- especially playing to 12 years ago, i'm not so sure. chris: ok. >> i agree with that. if at any point obama had said here's what we're going to do and it's really exciting, over the next four years we started doing this thing and now we have the largest wind farm in the world in oregon, we're going to have another one in nevada. if he had just come with that kind of -- chris: big question. but paul krugman in "the new york times" on friday said he's afraid to do that. because he will be hit again with big spending and more deficits if he proposes anything. >> and playing the republicans' game. chris: ok. let's look at what could be the key to everything. ohio. and you've written about it. every winning republican has carried ohio. and joe, your magazine, "time" magazine has a big spread on it this week. why hoeup will de
was for the auto rescue. no, they weren't. most republicans, with the exception by the way of president george w. bush who let it happen with actions he took, were against the auto rescue. so i don't understand, well i do understand, but people just don't want to take responsibility for where they stood on that issue. >> this was a question, carly about the auto bailout b. what role government direct government money would play in restructuring these companies. >> that's right. and who stands first in line to be repaid? is it the unions? or is it debtors and creditors? that was the fundamental question. and the truth is, it is disingenuous and factually inaccurate to say that republicans weren't for the rescue of the auto industry. the question was how. and what. and who would be repaid. but let me go back to your original question. of course it's about the economy. and in ohio, both governor kasich and mitt romney are right. governor kasich is right that his policies fundamentally different than obama's, lower taxes, close the budget deficit. make, create a regulatory environment that encourage
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)